Law schools are profitable. Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006. Student loans are easy to obtain. Easy money raises prices whether for tuition or real estate. If student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy once again, then tuitions will fall as lending standards tighten. Many law schools will close.

CanadianWolf wrote:Just skimmed the article. Law schools are profitable. Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006. Student loans are easy to obtain. Easy money raises prices whether for tuition or real estate.

The article essentially concludes that law schools are receiving a substantial public benefit due to easy access to financial aid, but are not conferring a reciprocal public benefit. It suggests that reigning in the accessibility of federal financial aid would be beneficial to both the public and students.

CanadianWolf wrote:Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006.

Neither are other school loans. The article was trying to address why law school tuition has raised even faster than other professional schools. His conclusion was the combination of a) Federal student loans (easy money like you said, although this is not particular to law schools) and b) the increase in law school enrollment over other professional schools (due to either higher startup costs in other fields or the ABA's unwillingness to regulate accreditation like the ADA or AMA--personally I think it's the latter).

Yes, I know that student loans are not dischargeable since 2005/2006. This is the primary reason for soaring college tuitions. Comparing law schools to medical schools is not fair. Medical schools are expensive to run, there is a cadavor shortage & we need more doctors. Medical schools cannot expand easily. Physician's assistant programs are designed to help cure the shortage while greatly lowering student debt to become a PA.

Law schools are cheap and can be fully paid for in whatever amount the school wants in federal loans. The profits derived from them go to faculty and administrative pay. Also new buildings. That is why costs keep going up. You are reading the same ancient cases that students read twenty years ago especially in 1L. The quality of the "education" did not change.

There's also the University administrators that think the vast majority of law students are going to be getting showered in cash the rest of their lives, so they have less qualms about charging us more.

Law schools are profitable. Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006. Student loans are easy to obtain. Easy money raises prices whether for tuition or real estate. If student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy once again, then tuitions will fall as lending standards tighten. Many law schools will close.

Something like this is obviously what needs to happen. But the stupid Democrats won't want to do anything that appears to limit access to 'education' while the stupid Republicans think the 'free market' can take care of everything; of course it will in the long run, but in incredibly inequitable ways thanks to both parties' policies. The recent Obama comments on creating a new scheme where the amount of fed loan one can receive to attend a school is tied to the school's performance, however to be determined, at least is a nod towards the problem.

Law schools are profitable. Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006. Student loans are easy to obtain. Easy money raises prices whether for tuition or real estate. If student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy once again, then tuitions will fall as lending standards tighten. Many law schools will close.

Something like this is obviously what needs to happen. But the stupid Democrats won't want to do anything that appears to limit access to 'education' while the stupid Republicans think the 'free market' can take care of everything; of course it will in the long run, but in incredibly inequitable ways thanks to both parties' policies. The recent Obama comments on creating a new scheme where the amount of fed loan one can receive to attend a school is tied to the school's performance, however to be determined, at least is a nod towards the problem.

How would you measure who to loan to?

I'm all for people with low grades being cut from the government's tit though (then again, I didn't have low grades, so I have a bias). But you're going to have to have other factors involved too. Major and school, for one. That brings up a whole bunch of other problems.

My uninformed assumption is that the richer you are, the more likely you are to go to a private school. Private schools are worse for grade inflation than public schools. If they tie lending rates to GPA, it's really just making the rich, richer. I know some very qualified high school students who don't go to great schools because they simply can't afford it. Only giving money to students that can afford to go to these places is incredibly regressive.

As I'm thinking about it this has a lot of other problems. Clearly the situation now is not working, but I'm not sure that just allowing students to go bankrupt is the answer either.

From Obama's tone, however, he does seem to understand it. He constantly talks about community colleges and tech schools as being alternatives. And he's right. There are too many kids in the liberal arts, four-year university system. Many of them should be doing something else.

If I understood some of Obama's comments on this, I think the focus would be on limiting fed loans to things like the for profit schools that have become so successful in recent years yet offer poor job prospects, e.g., the U of Phoenixes. And maybe to schools in general whose tuition has risen significantly more than inflation. Not sure how this would work though because like aggressive businesses I think virtually all schools have increased their tuition beyond inflation. So limits at least for fed loans would be based on the school not individual student.

As has been proposed elsewhere, including TLS, limiting fed funding per school will also require independent verification of school employment claims through audits or whatever. But law schools should be held to this already. Regardless, a run of the mill UG diploma (and JD) should be cheaper across the board -- instead of trying to force students into trade schools, etc, before they are ready by allowing UG degrees to remain insanely expensive for what they typically offer. The obvious solution seems to be to set an education policy where degrees are either exclusive and expensive or fairly non-exclusive and cheap. We just can't have run of the mill degrees (whatever field or level) remain so expensive and disconnected from job prospects.

Also the university may be funneling off significant funds from the law school. I know that above the law had some stories about the University of Baltimore taking quite a bit from the law school. I am sure this happens at many other law schools, possibly all of them.

For anyone interested there is a new book coming out about law school tuition. Failing Law Schools by Brian Tamahana. I'm not posting the link to the NYTimes review because sometimes you have to register for access to their articles. Here is a link on the taxprof blog.

CanadianWolf wrote:Law school student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy since 2005/2006.

Neither are other school loans. The article was trying to address why law school tuition has raised even faster than other professional schools. His conclusion was the combination of a) Federal student loans (easy money like you said, although this is not particular to law schools) and b) the increase in law school enrollment over other professional schools (due to either higher startup costs in other fields or the ABA's unwillingness to regulate accreditation like the ADA or AMA--personally I think it's the latter).

The whole thing pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I see this getting brought up a lot, and while I definitely agree, the "borderline" ABA accredited schools aren't even the main problem...there are only a few schools like these really on the bubble, but the majority of the oversupply in lawyers is coming from T50 to TTT's, schools that have been accredited for a long time and programs that are pretty old.